Digitalocean vs Tihost
Real-test comparison — higher score is better on every metric (0–100).
Sydney
Frankfurt
| Digitalocean | Metric | Tihost |
|---|---|---|
|
68.7
|
Overall |
55.6
|
|
100.0
|
Ping |
63.8
|
|
84.3
|
Network speed |
26.1
|
|
40.4
|
CPU |
83.2
|
|
36.1
|
Memory |
92.1
|
|
62.8
|
Disk |
33.7
|
| 1 vCPU · 1 GB RAM | Configuration | 4 vCPU · 4 GB RAM |
On the overall score Digitalocean is ahead: 68.7 vs 55.6 out of 100 — a gap of 13.1 points. But the overall score blends five categories with different weights, and your workload may only care about one of them.
Digitalocean is stronger on ping, network speed and disk; Tihost — on CPU and memory.
What that means in practice: for a game server, VPN and anything latency-sensitive, Digitalocean is the closer fit; for a database and write-heavy work — Digitalocean; for file delivery, streaming and backups — Digitalocean; for builds, encryption and compute-bound tasks — Tihost.
Where the numbers come from: the best published test of Digitalocean was taken in Australia on the 1 vCPU · 1 GB RAM plan, Tihost — in Germany on the 4 vCPU · 4 GB RAM plan. The locations differ, so compare ping and speed with care: they say as much about the route to our control endpoints as about the server itself.
Important: this compares the best published test of each provider, not an average across all their servers. Every result is a snapshot of one machine on the test date — on another node, or a month later, the numbers may differ. The scoring method and raw logs are public, so you can check them yourself.